So I read the FE Wiki about the lunar phases and I have some questions.

Quote

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

So how high/low does the Sun change altitude? We should be seeing the Sun's angular size increase/decrease, but this isn't reality.Also, since the sun is an omni flourescent light (at least I think it is on the flat earth), we should be seeing the Sun's light faintly illuminate the moon's top hemisphere.With the full moon now being above the Sun's orbital path, what causes it to FULLY illuminate the moon's surface? Because, the Sun should be at the same angle above/below the moon's orbit for the full/new moon for this to happen. Why are the two so drastically different?

I'd also like to hear an explanation how ALL observers on the flat earth can see the same lunar phase. Because, if you are "behind" the moons orbit, it would almost always be a new moon for you.

"We are not here to directly persuade anyone [...] You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."-Pete Svarrior

"We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"-Tom Bishop

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances. There is some agreement in the Flat Earth literature and by the wider Flat Earth community that, whatever their distance, they manifest as projections upon the atmosphere and are personal to the observer.

A projection may turn to face you. As an example of something in the atmosphere that turns to face you, consider rainbows. They are never seen from the side-on.

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances. There is some agreement in the Flat Earth literature and by the wider Flat Earth community that, whatever their distance, they manifest as projections upon the atmosphere and are personal to the observer.

A projection may turn to face you. As an example of something in the atmosphere that turns to face you, consider rainbows. They are never seen from the side-on.

That is a fascinating hypothesis. It warrants further investigation to detail whether projectional optical effects can have the degree of predictability used to find celestial bodies.

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

Really? If that's truly the case, then how have (at least) five countries managed to send spacecraft to rendezvous with most/all of the planets in our Solar System, as well as our Moon and a brace of other Moons?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

manicminer

I would beg to differ Tom. We actually know quite a bit about celestial bodies and about their distances. What particular celestial bodies do you mean?

Of course if you are limiting this statement to the extent of what FET 'knows' about celestial bodies then that is probably quite true. Beyond those boundaries though we have made quite a bit of progress on the knowledge front. Why not take a look for yourself...? you might learn something. Including why rainbows are never seen edge on. Sorry... side on.

I’d love to see a diagram of how FE thinks a full moon works. I know they say something about the sun and moon varying in altitude because of...reasons.But even with that I’m not clear how the angles would work such that the sun could illuminate enough of the moon than it’s full for everyone on the night side of the disc.

I’d love to see a diagram of how FE thinks a full moon works. I know they say something about the sun and moon varying in altitude because of...reasons.But even with that I’m not clear how the angles would work such that the sun could illuminate enough of the moon than it’s full for everyone on the night side of the disc.

I’ve been encouraging them to build this model for some time. I’m even willing to help! It seems like an obvious first task to legitimise FET.

Hence, I am a little surprised at the lack of response.

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that they were not interested in legitimising FET. But that’s absurd, why wouldn’t they be?

There is a possible epicycle trajectory that should work for mapping the sun and moon patterns over a FE. I’d need their help in figuring out whether this could also provide the moon phases.

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

I’d love to see a diagram of how FE thinks a full moon works. I know they say something about the sun and moon varying in altitude because of...reasons.But even with that I’m not clear how the angles would work such that the sun could illuminate enough of the moon than it’s full for everyone on the night side of the disc.

I’ve been encouraging them to build this model for some time. I’m even willing to help! It seems like an obvious first task to legitimise FET.

Hence, I am a little surprised at the lack of response.

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that they were not interested in legitimising FET. But that’s absurd, why wouldn’t they be?

There is a possible epicycle trajectory that should work for mapping the sun and moon patterns over a FE. I’d need their help in figuring out whether this could also provide the moon phases.

I would LOVE to see an animation/diagram/picture showing how they work on a flat earth.

"We are not here to directly persuade anyone [...] You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."-Pete Svarrior

"We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"-Tom Bishop

The moon cannot be generating its own light. If it did, then you would not have to be at certain location and to see an eclipse.

Do you have any evidence that supports your claim or are you just making things up.

I have evidence which says that a celestial body obscuring another (regardless of if it does or does not generate light) is an eclipse:

An eclipse, as defined by Merriam Webster is "the total or partial obscuring of one celestial body by another"

Do you notice how the definition is not "The total or partial obscuring of one celestial body by another celestial body which does not create or omit any light?

You are losing the argument to your own words.

If the moon emitted it’s own light, then that light would be viewable on the Earth irrespective of location. That is, every location where is was viewable, we would see the same moon. The fact that moon phases are location specific, as are eclipses, is direct evidence that the moon cannot be an emitter.

Now, what does your dictionary give as the definition for autistic?

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

If the moon emitted it’s own light, then that light would be viewable on the Earth irrespective of location. That is, every location where is was viewable, we would see the same moon. The fact that moon phases are location specific, as are eclipses, is direct evidence that the moon cannot be an emitter.

Then the hypothesis of the moon omitting it's own light would match what we see on earth then would it not? A full moon in the northern hemisphere is also a full moon in the lower hemisphere

If the moon emitted it’s own light, then that light would be viewable on the Earth irrespective of location. That is, every location where is was viewable, we would see the same moon. The fact that moon phases are location specific, as are eclipses, is direct evidence that the moon cannot be an emitter.

Then the hypothesis of the moon omitting it's own light would match what we see on earth then would it not? A full moon in the northern hemisphere is also a full moon in the lower hemisphere.

I guess back to the OP. If the moon emitted it's own light, what causes the phases, this:

I guess back to the OP. If the moon emitted it's own light, what causes the phases, this:

The answer, on the thread that I linked, was that the moon is rotating.

It is, but in synch with its partner, earth.

But if I understand you, it would be more like a spotlight with the full moon face we see all over the planet beaming and the backside face always dark. So to cause a phase by revolving, for instance, a waxing gibbous would reveal the left side of the moon face we see. Instead, it reveals the right side, which is what we observe.

But if I understand you, it would be more like a spotlight with the full moon face we see all over the planet beaming and the backside face always dark. So to cause a phase by revolving, for instance, a waxing gibbous would reveal the left side of the moon face we see. Instead, it reveals the right side, which is what we observe.

You would have to read through the thread to see what your takeaway from it was

manicminer

That was not the vibe that I got from the thread I linked. The vibe that I got was that it was not in sync with the Earth. It was independently rotating.

The Moon experiences what we call a synchronised orbit. That is to say its rotation period on its axis is the same as its orbital period around the Earth. Net result: the same faced of the Moon is always turned towards the direction of Earth.

Demonstration of principle: place a chair in the middle of a room to represent the Earth and then walk around the chair while you (representing the Moon) remain facing the chair. You rotate on your own axis while you are walking around the chair. After half an 'orbit' you will be facing the opposite wall of the room to when you started.

There is a little bit of a wobble on the Moon as it orbits. It is called libration and so we actually see 60% of the Moons surface during each phase cycle.